[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1fe036eb-5207-eccd-0cb3-aa22f5d130ce@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2022 08:36:26 -0500
From: Jonathan Toppins <jtoppins@...hat.com>
To: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Jay Vosburgh <j.vosburgh@...il.com>
Cc: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...il.com>,
Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] bonding: fix link recovery in mode 2 when
updelay is nonzero
On 11/22/22 05:59, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Fri, 2022-11-18 at 15:30 -0500, Jonathan Toppins wrote:
>> Before this change when a bond in mode 2 lost link, all of its slaves
>> lost link, the bonding device would never recover even after the
>> expiration of updelay. This change removes the updelay when the bond
>> currently has no usable links. Conforming to bonding.txt section 13.1
>> paragraph 4.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Toppins <jtoppins@...hat.com>
>
> Why are you targeting net-next? This looks like something suitable to
> the -net tree to me. If, so could you please include a Fixes tag?
>
> Note that we can add new self-tests even via the -net tree.
>
I could not find a reasonable fixes tag for this, hence why I targeted
the net-next tree.
-Jon
Powered by blists - more mailing lists